Muscle Activation Patterns During Variable Resistance Deadlift Training With and Without Elastic Bands

Abstract

Heelas, T, Theis, N, and Hughes, JD. Muscle activation patterns during variable resistance deadlift training with and without elastic bands. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of band-assisted variable resistance training on muscular activity in the lower limbs and barbell kinematics during the concentric phase of the deadlift. Fifteen resistance trained men (mean ± SD: 28.7 ± 9.3 years; 1.80 ± 0.90 m; 92.5 ± 15.1 kg) performed 6 deadlift repetitions during 4 loading conditions: 100-kg bar (no band), 80-kg bar with 20-kg band tension (B20), 75-kg bar with 25-kg band tension (B25), and 70-kg bar with 30-kg band tension (B30). Muscle activity from the medial gastrocnemius (MG), semitendinosus (ST), vastus medialis (VMO), vastus lateralis (VL), and gluteus maximus (GM) were recorded using surface electromyography during the concentric phase of the lift and expressed as a percentage of each muscle's maximal activity, recorded during a maximal isometric contraction. Barbell power and velocity were recorded using a linear position transducer. Electromyography results showed that muscle activity significantly decreased as band resistance increased in the MG and ST (p < 0.05) and progressively decreased in the GM. No changes were observed for the VMO or VL. Peak and mean bar velocity and power significantly increased as band resistance increased. Performing the deadlift with band-assisted variable resistance increases bar power and velocity, while concurrently decreasing muscle activation of the posterior chain musculature. Practitioners prescribing this exercise may wish to include additional posterior chain exercises that have been shown to elicit high levels of muscle activation.

Full text

Variable resistance training 1
!
!
Muscle activation patterns during variable resistance deadlift training with and without 1!
elastic bands. 2!
Thomas Heelas, Nicola Theis, & Jonathan D. Hughes* 3!
4!
Exercise and Sport Research Centre, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucestershire 5!
6!
*Corresponding author: 7!
Jonathan D. Hughes 8!
School of Sport and Exercise 9!
University of Gloucestershire 10!
Oxstalls Campus, Oxstalls Lane, 11!
Gloucester, 12!
Gloucestershire, 13!
GL2 9HW 14!
15!
Jhughes1@glos.ac.uk 16!
+44 1242 715165 17!
18!
19!

Variable resistance training 2
!
!
ABSTRACT 1!
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of band-assisted variable resistance 2!
training on muscular activity in the lower limbs and barbell kinematics during the concentric 3!
phase of the deadlift. Fifteen resistance trained men (mean ± SD: 28.7 ± 9.3 y; 1.80 ± 0.90 m; 4!
92.5 ± 15.1 kg) performed six deadlift repetitions during four loading conditions; 100 kg bar 5!
(NB), 80 kg bar with 20 kg band tension (B20), 75 kg bar with 25 kg band tension (B25) and 6!
70 kg bar with 30 kg band tension (B30). Muscle activity from the medial gastrocnemius (MG), 7!
semitendinosus (ST), vastus medialis (VMO), vastus lateralis (VL), and gluteus maximus 8!
(GM) were recorded using surface electromyography (sEMG) during the concentric phase of 9!
the lift and expressed as a percentage of each muscle’s maximal activity, recorded during a 10!
maximal isometric contraction. Barbell power and velocity were recorded using a linear 11!
position transducer. Electromyography results showed that muscle activity significantly 12!
decreased as band resistance increased in the MG and ST (p < 0.05) and progressively 13!
decreased in the GM. No changes were observed for the VMO or VL. Peak and mean bar 14!
velocity and power significantly increased as band resistance increased. Performing the deadlift 15!
with band-assisted variable resistance increases bar power and velocity, whilst concurrently 16!
decreasing muscle activation of the posterior chain musculature. Practitioners prescribing this 17!
exercise may wish to include additional posterior chain exercises that have been shown to elicit 18!
high levels of muscle activation. 19!
20!
Key Words: EMG, deadlift, power, velocity, accommodating resistance 21!

Variable resistance training 3
!
!
INTRODUCTION 1!
Success in several sports is dependent on an athletes’ ability to exert high levels of muscular 2!
force and power (1). In sports where there are large volumes of jumping, sprinting and change 3!
of direction, peak power production is paramount (2). The use of traditional resistance training 4!
to increase muscular power is widely implemented in athletic populations (18). However, due 5!
to the length-tension relationship, a constant external load does not allow the muscle to produce 6!
high forces through a full range of motion. Instead, a constant load creates biomechanically 7!
disadvantageous positions for producing maximal force and acceleration (15). One such 8!
position is the start of a deadlift, where the force-producing muscles (quadriceps and gluteal 9!
muscles) are in a lengthened position and therefore limited in their ability to produce maximal 10!
force to overcome the external resistance (20).!During a traditional deadlift exercise, the load 11!
on the bar increases as the barbell is moved through the concentric phase of the movement, 12!
making it increasingly more difficult to maintain a high velocity and acceleration (4,9). Since 13!
power is dependent on both strength and speed, exercises which allow an athlete to maintain 14!
force whilst working at high velocities are necessary, especially as traditional resistance 15!
exercise encourages athletes to decelerate during the latter stages of the concentric phase, 16!
which is not necessarily sport specific. It has been advocated that performing traditional 17!
resistance exercises, such as deadlift, with submaximal loads, prevents the adequate 18!
development of muscular power (16). It has been stated that in order to maximize power in 19!
traditional resistance exercises such as the squat and bench press, loads equating to 30-50% 20!
1RM are sufficient (22,9). However, the optimal load for maximizing power development 21!
during the deadlift is not clearly defined, especially across a range of athletes with different 22!
training backgrounds and strength levels 23!
24!

Variable resistance training 4
!
!
When performing a traditional deadlift using constant load, a large force is needed during the 1!
initial upward phase, causing a greater generation of momentum throughout the movement. 2!
This momentum assists with moving the weight and results in less muscle activity needed 3!
towards the top of the lift. As a result, variable resistance training (VRT), has been proposed 4!
as an alternative modality to enhance power production, by increasing load throughout the 5!
entire concentric phase of a lift (5). In VRT, the resistance generated from elastic bands or 6!
chains, negates the use of momentum towards the top of the lift, and creates a greater demand 7!
for muscle activity through the full range of motion. At biomechanically disadvantageous 8!
positions, resistance is lowered meaning an increase in bar velocity and subsequent stimulation 9!
of more fast-twitch fibres. Thus, with VRT, the athlete is able to maintain high force production 10!
at high velocities during selected resistance exercises. This type of training has been shown to 11!
produce superior strength-power adaptations in comparison to traditional resistance training 12!
(e.g. increased 1 repetition maximum bench press, bench press mean velocity and power) (17) 13!
by allowing athletes to generate greater bar velocities and power during deadlifts, as a result of 14!
decreased initial concentric load (13). 15!
16!
The evidence for the use of VRT to change bar velocity and power is promising (19,11) but the 17!
neuromuscular mechanisms, by which this occurs has produced mixed findings. It has been 18!
demonstrated that vastus lateralis (VL) muscle activity is higher during squats with banded 19!
resistance, though only during early stages of the eccentric phase and at the end of the 20!
concentric phase, coinciding with maximal resistance (13). This was contradicted by Ebben et 21!
al. (7) who showed no changes in muscle activation of the quadriceps and hamstring during a 22!
squat using VRT with bands. Only one study to date has investigated the effects of VRT on 23!
muscle activity during the deadlift (15). In this study, chains were used to apply 24!
accommodating resistance, resulting in decreased gluteus maximus (GM) muscle activity in 25!

Variable resistance training 5
!
!
comparison to a traditional free weight condition. Muscle activation levels for the erector 1!
spinae and VL muscles were unaffected by chain use. These results highlight that the modality 2!
of accommodating resistance may influence the effects of VRT. This was supported in two 3!
further studies on kinetics, which showed that, performing the deadlift decreased bar power 4!
and velocity with chains (19) but increased bar power and velocity with bands (11). 5!
6!
No study to date has investigated both lower limb muscle activation and bar velocity and power 7!
with banded variable resistance training during the deadlift. Consequently, the neuromuscular 8!
mechanisms responsible for a potential observed increase in bar power and velocity during the 9!
deadlift exercise remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate bar 10!
kinematics and muscle activation of the lower limb during a deadlift, performed with and 11!
without elastic bands as an accommodating resistance. 12!
13!
METHODS 14!
Experimental Approach to the Problem 15!
The study used a randomized, repeated measures, balanced design to investigate the effects of 16!
banded variable resistance on muscle activation, bar velocity and power during the deadlift. 17!
Surface electromyography (EMG) recorded muscle activation of the gluteus maximus (GM), 18!
vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VMO), semitendinosus (ST), and medial gastrocnemius 19!
(MG) in four deadlift conditions; 100 kg barbell load (NB), 80 kg bar with 20 kg band tension 20!
(B20), 75 kg bar with 25 kg band tension (B25) and 70 kg bar with 30 kg band tension (B30) 21!
(loads were equated at the top of the lift). The load of 100kg at the top of the lift equated to a 22!
mean of 53.6 ± 7.9% of subjects 1RM. Simultaneous measures of bar velocity and power were 23!
also recorded using a linear position transducer. For each condition, participants were 24!
instructed to lift the barbell by applying maximal effort during the concentric phase, and then 25!

Variable resistance training 6
!
!
lowering the barbell in a controlled manner. Belts and straps were not allowed to be utilised 1!
during the trial. Prior to the study, a pilot test was carried out to assess intra and inter-set 2!
reliability of banded resistance on kinetic bar variables by calculating intra-class correlation 3!
coefficients. The results demonstrated excellent inter-set reliability (peak power = 0.99, peak 4!
force = 1.00, peak velocity = 0.98) and good intra-set reliability (peak power = 0.80, peak force 5!
= 0.86, peak velocity = 0.82 for intra-set reliability) (14). 6!
7!
Subjects 8!
Fifteen resistance trained men (Mean ± SD: age, 28.7 ± 9.3 y; stature, 1.80 ± 0.9 m; mass, 92.5 9!
± 15.1 kg) with at least 1 year of deadlifting experience (1RM barbell deadlift, 190 ± 28 kg) 10!
volunteered for this study. All participants were free from musculoskeletal injuries and 11!
instructed to refrain from resistance training 48 hours before testing. Ethical approval was 12!
granted by the institutional ethics committee in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. 13!
All subjects provided written informed consent prior to participating in the study. 14!
Experimental setup 15!
Surface EMG (Biometrics Ltd, MWX8 DataLOG) sampling at 1000 Hz, recorded muscle 16!
activation during the concentric phase of the deadlift, in each condition. To avoid confounding 17!
the EMG signal, participant’s skin was shaved at the electrode placement site and cleaned with 18!
isopropyl alcohol to reduce impedance levels (<10 kΩ) (3). Surface electrodes were placed 19!
over the GM, VL, VM, ST and MG muscles in the direction of the underlying muscle fibres, 20!
with the reference electrode placed over the pisiform bone (www.seniam.org).!Electrodes for 21!
each muscle group were placed on the participants dominant limb, in the following manner: (i) 22!
GM; midway between the sacral vertebrae and the greater trochanter (ii) ST; midway between 23!
the ischial tuberosity and the medial epicondyle of the tibia (iii) VM; 80% along the line 24!
between the anterior spina iliac superior and the joint space in front of the anterior border of 25!

Variable resistance training 7
!
!
the medial ligament (iv) VL; two thirds on the line from the anterior spina iliac superior to the 1!
lateral side of the patella (v) MG; on the most prominent bulge of the muscle. Electrodes were 2!
connected to a Datalog device (Biometrics Data Log PC Software Version 8.51), which used 3!
both a high-pass third order filter (18dB/octave; 20Hz) to remove DC offsets due to membrane 4!
potential, and a lowpass filter for frequencies above 450 Hz. 5!
6!
To record bar velocity and power in each condition, a linear transducer cable, recording at 50 7!
Hz, (GymAware Powertool, Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia) was 8!
attached to the centre of the barbell. A barbell load of 100 kg was entered onto the GymAware 9!
software for each deadlift condition to calculate power, as total load with band tension was 10!
approximately the same for each condition. Data for each repetition were collected and stored 11!
on an iPad handheld device. 12!
13!
Band tension measurement 14!
Two elastic bands (Perform Better, Warwickshire, UK) were anchored to dumbbells and 15!
looped over the sleeves of the barbell (Eleiko, Halmstadt, Sweden). Subjects were stationary 16!
in both the lockout and bottom position of the deadlift while standing on a force plate sampling 17!
at 1000Hz (type 9287BA, Kistler Instrumente AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) the mass of the 18!
individual and barbell were accounted for and the resistance produced by the bands at either 19!
position was measured. The band tension was the average over the entire range of motion and 20!
represented 14.61 ± 1.02 to 0.00 ± 0.22 % at the top and bottom of the deadlift. 21!
22!
Procedures 23!
Participants began with an exercise-specific warm-up, including five repetitions at 60 kg, five 24!
repetitions at 80 kg and three repetitions at 100 kg. To allow normalisation of the sEMG signal 25!

Variable resistance training 8
!
!
during the deadlift conditions, maximal sEMG signals were obtained for each muscle group. 1!
To do this, participants performed three, 5 s maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) 2!
of each exercise: bilateral standing calf raise (MG), seated unilateral 45° knee extension (VM 3!
and VL), unilateral prone hamstring curl (ST) and standing glute squeeze (GM) (feet slightly 4!
wider than shoulder width apart and hips slightly externally rotated). 5!
6!
Following the MVIC testing, participants were given a mandatory 15 min rest period before 7!
performing six repetitions of each deadlift condition with a three-minute rest between each 8!
condition; the order of which was randomised Participants were instructed to perform “dead 9!
stop” repetitions (no rebounding the barbell from the floor) and apply maximal effort during 10!
the concentric phase followed by lowering the barbell in a controlled manner during the 11!
eccentric phase (Figure 1). For each condition, the start and end of the concentric phase was 12!
marked using a manual digital input. 13!
***Insert Figure 1 near here*** 14!
Data processing 15!
Raw electromyographic signals were analysed using a root mean square (RMS) filter with a 16!
moving window length of 100 ms. For each muscle group and for each condition, mean and 17!
peak amplitude over the concentric phase were calculated and expressed relative to each 18!
participants’ highest recorded sEMG amplitude during the MVIC trials. Rate of activation was 19!
also calculated over the concentric phase, as a change in activation over the concentric phase 20!
divided by a corresponding change in time. 21!
22!
Vertical displacement of the barbell was measured from the rotational movement of the spool 23!
by correcting for any motion in the horizontal plane. Instantaneous velocity was determined as 24!
the change in barbell position with respect to time and acceleration data were calculated as the 25!

Variable resistance training 9
!
!
change in barbell velocity over the change in time. Acceleration was multiplied by mass to give 1!
force, and power was then subsequently calculated as the product of force and velocity. Power 2!
and velocity were expressed as both peak values and averaged over the concentric phase of the 3!
deadlift. For all variables and for each condition, two of six repetitions were chosen for further 4!
analysis. The two repetitions where peak EMG amplitude was highest and within ± 10%, were 5!
averaged and these same trials were used for power and velocity analyses. 6!
7!
Statistical analyses 8!
A series of one-way repeated measures ANOVA’s were performed to assess differences in 9!
muscle activation between deadlift conditions. Further one-way repeated measures ANOVA’s 10!
were performed to assess differences in bar velocity and power. In the case of a significant 11!
main effect, post-hoc pairwise t-tests with Bonferroni corrections were performed between 12!
conditions to control for Type I errors. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (version 25, 13!
IBM SPSS). Where significant differences were found Cohen’s d was calculated to determine 14!
the magnitude of difference in conditions. Changes were considered trivial <0.2; small 0.2-0.6; 15!
moderate 0.6-1.2; and large 1.2-2 (6). 16!
17!
RESULTS 18!
Electromyography 19!
Results of deadlift condition on mean and peak MVIC% are presented in Table 1. There was 20!
no significant effect of deadlift condition on mean MVIC%. There was a significant main effect 21!
of deadlift condition on peak MVIC% for the MG (F(3,14) = 3.99, p = 0.01) and ST (F(3,14) = 22!
3.90, p = 0.02), but no significant main effect of deadlift condition on peak MVIC% for the for 23!
the GM (F(3,14) = 2.52, p = 0.07), VL (F(3,14) = 0.40, p = 0.750) and VMO (F(3,14) = 0.44, p = 24!
0.720). Post hoc tests showed that peak MVIC% for the MG decreased significantly (p < 0.05) 25!
between NB and B25 (ES = -0.45; 95% CI [-1.17 - 0.28]); NB and B30 (ES = -0.31; 95% CI 26!

Variable resistance training 10
!
!
[-1.03 – 0.41]) and B20 and B25 (ES = -0.31; 95% CI [-1.03 – 0.41]). Peak MVIC% for the ST 1!
decreased significantly (p < 0.05) between NB and B20 (ES = -0.44; 95% CI [-1.16 - 0.29]) 2!
and NB and B25 (ES = -0.40; 95% CI [-1.13 - 0.32]). 3!
***Insert Table 1 near here*** 4!
Results of deadlift condition on rate of activation are presented in Table 2. No significant effect 5!
of deadlift condition on rate of activation was observed for the MG (F(3,14) = 2.77, p = 0.052), 6!
ST (F(3,14) = 0.65, p = 0.580), VMO (F(3,14) = 0.28, p = 0.830), VL (F(3,14) = 0.04, p = 0.980), 7!
and GM (F(3,14) = 1.60, p = 0.200). 8!
***Insert Table 2 near here*** 9!
Power 10!
Results of deadlift condition on bar power are presented in Table 3. There was a significant 11!
main effect of deadlift condition on concentric peak power (F(3,14) = 30.33, p < 0.01) and 12!
concentric mean power (F(3,14) = 39.81, p < 0.01). Post hoc tests revealed that concentric peak 13!
power increased significantly (p < 0.05) between NB and B20 (ES = 0.48; 95% CI [-0.25 - 14!
1.20]); NB and B25 (ES = 0.56; 95% CI [-0.17 - 1.29]) NB and B30 (ES = 0.61; 95% CI [-0.12 15!
– 1.34]) and B20 and B30 (ES = 0.17; 95% CI [-0.55 – 0.88]). No significant differences were 16!
observed between B20 and B25 and B25 and B30. Additionally, concentric mean power 17!
increased significantly (p < 0.05) between NB and B20 (ES = 0.78; 95% CI [0.04 - 1.52]); NB 18!
and B25 (ES = 0.89; 95% CI [0.14 - 1.64]); NB and B30 (ES = 1.00; 95% CI [0.24 - 1.75]) and 19!
B20 and B30 (ES = 0.29; 95% CI [-0.43 - 1.01]). No significant differences were observed 20!
between B20 and B25 and B25 and B30. 21!
***Insert Table 3 near here*** 22!
Velocity 23!
Results of deadlift condition on bar velocity are presented in Table 4. There was a significant 24!
main effect of deadlift condition on concentric mean velocity (F(3,14) = 45.91, p < 0.01) and 25!

Variable resistance training 11
!
!
concentric peak velocity (F(3,14) = 45.77, p < 0.01). Post hoc tests revealed that concentric peak 1!
velocity increased significantly (p <0.05) between NB and B20 (ES = 1.00; 95% CI [0.24 - 2!
1.76]); NB and B25 (ES = 1.00; 95% CI [0.24 - 1.76]) NB and B30 (ES = 0.38; 95% CI [0.04 3!
– 1.53]) and B20 and B30 (ES = 0.37; 95% CI [-0.72 – 0.72]). Additionally, concentric mean 4!
velocity increased significantly (p < 0.05) between NB and B20 (ES = 1.00; 95% CI [0.24 - 5!
1.76]); NB and B25 (ES = 1.26; 95% CI [0.48 – 2.05]); NB and B30 (ES = 1.26; 95% CI [0.48 6!
– 2.05]) and B20 and B30 (ES = 0.63; 95% CI [-0.10 - 1.37]). For both variables, no significant 7!
differences were observed between B20 and B25 and B25 and B30. 8!
***Insert Table 4 near here*** 9!
DISCUSSION 10!
The purpose of this study was to compare bar kinematics and muscle activation of the lower 11!
limb during a deadlift, across various conditions of accommodating elastic band resistance. 12!
The results showed that 1) concentric bar power and velocity progressively increased from NB 13!
to the highest accommodating resistance at B30 2) in general, peak MVIC% for the MG, ST 14!
and GM decreased with accommodating band resistance 3) No differences in peak MVIC% 15!
were observed for the VL and VM 4) No differences in mean MVIC% were observed for any 16!
muscle 5) No differences were observed between conditions in rate of activation for any 17!
muscle. 18!
19!
Our results showed that there was an overall increase in both mean and peak bar power and 20!
velocity as accommodating band resistance increased. These results agree with the previous 21!
research in both the squat (13) and deadlift (11). In the study by Galpin et al. (11), an increase 22!
in accommodating resistance contributing to the overall increased barbell load, caused a 23!
subsequent increase in bar velocity throughout the concentric phase of the deadlift. Mechanical 24!
power is defined as the product of force and velocity. Therefore, as the average load decreases 25!

Variable resistance training 12
!
!
with increasing accommodating band resistance, athletes were able to increase bar velocity, 1!
leading to overall increases in bar power. This result is not surprising, given that with greater 2!
band tension, there is less resistance at the bottom of the lift as more barbell weight is taken off 3!
to accommodate higher band tensions at the top. Interestingly, we found that bar velocity and 4!
power began to plateau at the heavier band resistance loads (B25 and B30), consistent with one 5!
previous finding (21). Wallace et al. (21) found that the increases in peak force with higher 6!
levels of banded resistance were significantly greater than the changes in peak force with low 7!
levels of band tension. Taken together with the results from this study, this suggests a trend 8!
towards a plateau after B30, such that band percentages greater than 25-30% of total load may 9!
have no added benefit to enhancing bar velocity and power. Indeed, Wallace et al. (21) 10!
demonstrated a significant decline in peak power from 85% of 1RM, where 20% of 1RM was 11!
from band tension, to 85% of 1RM where 35% of 1RM was from band tension. 12!
13!
Peak muscle activation decreased significantly in the MG and ST as band resistance increased 14!
but with no changes in the VL, which conflicts with findings in the squat of an increase in 15!
muscle activation. However, the biomechanical differences between the squat and deadlift, (12) 16!
including the potentiation effects during the lowering phase of the squat limit the comparability 17!
of these exercises. There was also a trend in the GM of decreasing muscle activation with 18!
increasing band resistance; consistent with previous studies using chains to provide variable 19!
resistance (5). These results might be explained by an initial lower concentric load as greater 20!
band tension was added to the bar. For example, in high resistance conditions (B30), lower 21!
levels of muscle activation would be required in the initial phase of the deadlift, to overcome 22!
the inertia of the bar, compared to a NB condition (21). Therefore, as the band-to-free weight 23!
ratio increases, less muscle activation would be required to maintain force production and bar 24!
momentum throughout the concentric phase. This is supported by our bar velocity data, 25!

Variable resistance training 13
!
!
whereby an increase in bar velocity is accompanied by a concurrent decrease in peak muscle 1!
activation of the MG, ST and GM. Despite no change in peak muscle activation across 2!
conditions, the anterior chain muscles (VL and VMO) demonstrated an ability to work at near 3!
maximal activation (>86% and >98%, respectively) even at the higher velocities, where the 4!
highest motor unit recruitment occurs for power adaptations (10). However, the result that 5!
mean MVIC% did not change across conditions demonstrates that the total work performed 6!
was not enhanced with increasing band tension. 7!
!8!
The finding that rate of muscle activation (change in activation/change in time) was not 9!
different across conditions, is consistent with the decrease in peak activation and increase in 10!
bar velocity observed in this study. For example, average concentric load was greatest during 11!
the NB condition, resulting in the highest peak muscle activations. However, consistent with 12!
low bar velocity, the time taken to reach peak activation was longest in the NB condition. This 13!
combination of high peak activation over a longer period produces similar rates of activation 14!
to high resistance conditions. In the B30 condition, for example, peak activation was lowest, 15!
but the time taken to reach this peak activation was shorter. The overall result is a finding that 16!
rate of activation is similar across conditions with increasing bar velocity and decreasing peak 17!
activations. 18!
19!
This is the first study to demonstrate neuromuscular responses to banded resistance exercise 20!
during the deadlift. Overall, the results showed a progressive decrease in muscle activation of 21!
the posterior chain musculature as band resistance increased. However, for the GM in 22!
particular, results across individuals showed high variability (<43% to >100%), highlighting 23!
the importance of investigating inter-individual differences in anthropometrics or deadlift 24!
technique with VRT. Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated the effect of different deadlift 25!

Variable resistance training 14
!
!
exercises on muscle activation (5,8), highlighting that technique could be an important factor 1!
related to muscle activation patterns during VRT. It should also be noted that all testing was 2!
performed during a single experimental session and the testing of MVIC’s prior to the testing 3!
of the deadlifts may have had some potentiating or fatiguing effects on the muscles being tested. 4!
5!
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 6!
Practitioners prescribing the deadlift with banded variable resistance may wish to include 7!
additional posterior chain exercises that have been shown to elicit high levels of muscle 8!
activation. Conversely, in situations where load needs to be removed from the posterior chain 9!
such as highly intensified blocks of training that include large volumes of high speed running 10!
VRT with higher tension bands may be beneficial. They should also be aware that there may 11!
be no or only minimal additional benefits in power and velocity, when using a band tension 12!
that accounts for or exceeds approximately 30% of the total load. Athletes may gain the most 13!
benefit from performing the deadlift with banded variable resistance when it is implemented 14!
into a peaking or pre-competition phase, due to the increases in bar power and velocity. This 15!
may be of importance to athletes involved in vertical jumping performance (e.g. volleyball or 16!
high jump athletes) due to the requirement on them to have the combination of high force 17!
production coupled with high velocity actions. 18!
19!
REFERENCES 20!
1.!Baker D. A series of studies on the training of high intensity muscle power in rugby 21!
league football players. J Strength Cond Research 15: 198-209, 2001. 22!
2.!Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and 23!
college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Research 15: 30–35, 2001. 24!

Variable resistance training 15
!
!
3.!Ball N, and Scurr J. An assessment of the reliability and standardisation of tests used 1!
to elicit reference muscular actions for electromyographical normalisation. J 2!
Electromyo Kinesiol 20: 81-88, 2010 3!
4.!Berning, JM, Coker, CA, and Briggs, D. The biomechanical and perceptual influence 4!
of chain resistance on the performance of the Olympic clean. J Strength Cond Res 22: 5!
390–395, 2008. 6!
5.!Ciccone AB, Lynn SK, Brown LE, Coburn JW, and Nijem RM. Electromyographic and 7!
force plate analysis of the Deadlift performed with and without chains. J Strength Cond 8!
Res 30: 1177–1182, 2016. 9!
6.!Cohen J. The T-Test for Means. In: 2nd, ed. Statistical Power Analysis for the 10!
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, MI: Routledge, 1988. pp. 19–74. 11!
7.!Ebben WE, and Jensen RL. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of traditional, 12!
chain, and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond Res 16: 547–550, 2002. 13!
8.!Escamilla RF, Francisco AC, Kayes AV, Speer KP, and Moorman CT. An 14!
electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Med Sci Sports 15!
Ex 34: 682–688, 2002. 16!
9.!Frost, DM, Cronin, JB, and Newton, RU. Have we underestimated the kinematic and 17!
kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion? Sports Biomech 7: 372–385, 2008. 18!
10.!Frost, DM, Cronin, J, and Newton, RU. A biomechanical evaluation of resistance 19!
fundamental concepts for training and sports performance. Sports Med 40: 303–326, 20!
2010. 21!
11.!Galpin AJ, Malyszek KK, Davis KA, Record SM, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al. 22!
Acute effects of elastic bands on kinetic characteristics during the deadlift at moderate 23!
and heavy loads. J Strength Cond Res 29: 3271–3278, 2015. 24!

Variable resistance training 16
!
!
12.!Hales, ME, Johnson, BF, and Johnson, JT. Kinematic analysis of the powerlifting 1!
style squat and the conventional deadlift during competition: Is there a cross-over 2!
effect between lifts?.J Strength Cond Res 23: 2574–2580, 2009. 3!
13.!Israetel, M. A., McBride, J. M., Nuzzo, J. L., Skinner, J. W., & Dayne, A. M. Kinetic 4!
and kinematic differences between squats performed with and without elastic bands. J 5!
Strength Cond Res 24: 190–194, 2010. 6!
14.!Koo TK and Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation 7!
Coefficients for Reliability Research. J of Chirop Med 15: 155-163, 446, 2016. 8!
15.!Nijem 9!
16.!Newton, RU, Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, K, Humphries, BJ, and Murphy, AJ. 10!
Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. 11!
J Appl Biomech 12: 31–43, 1996. 12!
17.!Rivière M, Louit L, Strokosch A, and Seitz LB. Variable resistance training promotes 13!
greater strength and power adaptations than traditional resistance training in elite 14!
youth rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 31: 947–955, 2017. 15!
18.!Siegel JA, Gilders RM, Staron RS, Hagerman FC. Human muscle power output 16!
during upper- and lower-body exercises. J Strength Cond Res 16: 173–178, 2002. 17!
19.!Swinton PA, Stewart AD, Keogh, JWL, Agouris I, and Lloyd R. Kinematic and 18!
kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts performed with and without the 19!
inclusion of chain resistance. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3163–3174, 2011. 20!
20.!Swinton PA, Stewart A, Agouris I, Keogh JW, Lloyd R. A biomechanical analysis of 21!
straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 22!
25:2000-9, 2011. 23!

Variable resistance training 17
!
!
21.!Wallace BJ, Winchester JB, and McGuigan MR. Effects of elastic bands on force and 1!
power characteristics during the back-squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res, 20: 268, 2!
2006. 3!
22.!Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, and Signorile, JF. Peak power, ground 4!
reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads. J 5!
Strength Cond Res 20: 658–664, 2006. 6!
7!
8!

Variable resistance training 18
!
!
1!
Figure 1. Experimental setup of the banded deadlift condition 2!

Variable resistance training 19
!
!
1!
Table 1. Electromyographic (EMG)!results of peak and mean MVIC (%) during no band, B20, 2!
B25 and B30 conditions. Values are mean ± SD. 3!
4!
Muscle group
Condition
GM
ST
VL
VMO
MG
NB
Peak
124.7 ± 46.4
99.6 ± 28.4
89.6 ± 33.5
101.6 ± 23.3
46.4 ± 17.7
Mean
78.3 ± 30.1
61.1 ± 18.6
81.7 ± 20.7
69.4 ± 28.3
30.0 ± 11.9
B20
Peak
118.7 ± 45.0
88.9 ± 19.6*
86.3 ± 25.3
101.7 ± 27.1
43.5 ± 13.2
Mean
76.1 ± 31.6
55.9 ± 12.1
81.4 ± 22.3
67.5 ± 21.9
29.3 ± 8.3
B25
Peak
116.0 ± 42.9
88.7 ± 25.7*
87.3 ± 25.4
100.7 ± 27.5
39.0 ± 15.4*†
Mean
76.5 ± 28.9
56.1 ± 15.9
82.2 ± 24.4
69.4 ± 23.3
26.9 ± 9.6
B30
Peak
112.5 ± 38.6
92.6 ± 24.6
88.0 ± 29.5
98.3 ± 26.4
41.4 ± 14.5*
Mean
74.4 ± 24.9
61.3 ± 18.7
81.0 ± 23.5
70.1 ± 25.5
29.9 ± 9.7
* denotes statistically significant different to NB (p < 0.05). † denotes statistically significant 5!
different to B20 (p < 0.05). 6!
! !7!

Variable resistance training 20
!
!
Table 2. Results of rate of activation (mV·s-1) during no band, B20, B25 and B30 conditions. 1!
Values are mean ± SD.! 2!
3!
Rate of Activation (mV·s-1)
GM
ST
VL
VMO
MG
NB
0.2 ± 0.1
0.4 ± 0.2
0.2 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.1
0.2 ± 0.1
B20
0.2 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.1
0.2 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.1
0.2 ± 0.1
B25
0.3 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.2
0.3 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.2
0.2 ± 0.1
B30
0.2 ± 0.1
0.4 ± 0.2
0.3 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.2
0.2 ± 0.1
4!
5!

Variable resistance training 21
!
!
Table 3. Results of peak and mean power (W) during no band, B20, B25 and B30 conditions. 1!
Values are mean ± SD. 2!
3!
Condition
Peak Power (W)
Mean Power (W)
NB
1285.8 ± 409.9
722.6 ± 138.6
B20
1493.4 ± 462.3*
835.7 ± 151.3*
B25
1548.7 ± 515.8*
857.3 ± 164.4*
B30
1576.1 ± 533.0*†
884.0 ± 182.5*†
* denotes statistically significant different to NB (p < 0.05). † denotes statistically significant 4!
different to B20 (p < 0.05). 5!
6!

Variable resistance training 22
!
!
Table 4. Results of peak and mean velocity (m·s-1) during no band, B20, B25 and B30 1!
conditions. Values are mean ± SD.!!2!
!3!
Condition
Peak Velocity (m·s-1)
Mean Velocity (m·s-1)
NB
1.2 ± 0.2
0.7 ± 0.1
B20
1.4 ± 0.2*
0.8 ± 0.1*
B25
1.4 ± 0.2*
0.9 ± 0.2*
B30
1.4 ± 0.3*†
0.9 ± 0.2*†
* denotes statistically significant different to NB (p < 0.05). † denotes statistically significant 4!
different to B20 (p < 0.05). 5!